Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: If you do, you certainly must draw your paycheck from CERN. God! I wish! Please someone, PAY ME! I will tell you where to send the check. Just don't contact me from Nigeria!
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right, because hot fusion is known to work. High energy nuclear reactions work. Low energy nuclear reactions work. Medium energy nuclear reactions work. Ain't nature wonderful?! T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. You want someone to blame because your hopes of cold fusion have not been realized. But pinning it on MIT is silly, and a huge insult to the cold fusion community. It's not like MIT has that much power, especially outside the US, and the US is not the only place that funds research, or makes breakthroughs. After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research; more than either of them had received in funding before. They claim they proved cold fusion on a shoestring. And yet 50M more couldn't convince the mainstream of the principle. Other countries like Italy, Japan, India, and even in the US, places like SRI and SPAWAR funded cold fusion research. And there were hundreds of scientists involved. If they haven't been able to prove cold fusion to the mainstream, that just is not MIT's fault. Or the DOE's. The people who think it's real have to take responsibility for not succeeding at proving it to the world. If Rossi proves legit, then that will show that it was not for lack of money that it took so long, but for lack of inspiration. And if believers let MIT rob them of inspiration, then that doesn't say much for them.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research; You are so unaware of the history of LENR. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research; You are so unaware of the history of LENR. You mean PF didn't receive lots of money to continue their work? And lab facilities offers in big companies? And weren't given honors and tons of attention? And have never managed to come up with a reproducible and robust proof of sustained excess energy for long periods of time, replicated and published in mainline journals by their peers? I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). I just browsed rapidly through a bunch of abstracts. I don't recall exactly because I almost fell asleep but it was the 16th something or over with a yellowish/cream cover in a PDF format? It was really difficult going and tons of theory but from what I could see, no compelling result! Where are those compelling, clear and well written results that prove that we can get robust results from LENR/cold fusion? I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy producing industry or company.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy producing industry or company. Rossy says, MY says, and the pot calls the kettle black, etc...
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy producing industry or company. Rossy says, MY says, and the pot calls the kettle black, etc... Sorry. I don't understand the remark. Aren't we supposed to be clear and polite here? Is that saying you know of no papers such would fit the reasonable request I made? Or are you saying you think I work for some energy producing company? And if so, how do you know or why do you think such a ridiculous thing?
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying. And, why wouldn`t I think that you work for an energy company? You say that Rossi has all signs of being a scammer, why not that you work for an energy company? It is very common for companies to employ people to derail others in forums. 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com I really do want to see them. I have no axe to grind and as hard as it is for some believers to believe, I have never worked for an energy producing industry or company. Rossy says, MY says, and the pot calls the kettle black, etc... Sorry. I don't understand the remark. Aren't we supposed to be clear and polite here? Is that saying you know of no papers such would fit the reasonable request I made? Or are you saying you think I work for some energy producing company? And if so, how do you know or why do you think such a ridiculous thing?
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: 'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). There are dozens of these. You should look over George Miley's work from 1996. Heat of high order and host metal transmutation. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying. Perhaps but I never originate messages of that sort. I only respond to comments from others when it is clear that they are not considering the issues I think are important. Almost always, those are also restatements of views. I think everyone does that here in response to others. And, why wouldn`t I think that you work for an energy company? I suppose it doesn't really matter -- the discussion should be about issues and not what someone is or who they work for. I do get tired of people saying with apparent certainty that I am somehow against cold fusion because I am distrustful of Rossi. Nothing is further from the truth. I would like very much for cold fusion to be a useful energy source. I would be happy to see convincing evidence that it is. I was extremely optimistic when I first read about Rossi and could hardly wait for the details of the methods and data used by Levi in his February experiment to come out. I was deeply disappointed to find that the dog ate his homework and he wouldn't give anyone any valid information. I was deeply disappointed that this incredible oversight has not been corrected since. I was disappointed again by Rossi's tangential responses and censorship of excellent questions, and well... I won't repeat the rest. I wish Rossi did not act like a classical free energy scammer but he most often does! You say that Rossi has all signs of being a scammer, why not that you work for an energy company? I only wish one would pay me! I'm pretty good at nosing out scams. Some of my work involves trouble shooting and looking for unusual solutions to unpleasant problems with technology. But no, I don't work for them. The only companies I have worked for are research and technology products companies and while some had energy related programs and contracts, I was not personally involved in them-- not a single one. It is very common for companies to employ people to derail others in forums. I doubt it very much but if you know of cases, please provide some evidence-- any evidence -- of a large company which you know employs people to derail internet forums. Most large companies pay no attention to them at all.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: 'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). There are dozens of these. You should look over George Miley's work from 1996. Heat of high order and host metal transmutation. I'd appreciate a link to one or two of the ones you think are the best. If you were asking for papers in one of the fields in which I claim expertise, I'd be happy to refer you to a paper I think sums up the issue most clearly. Can you do the same for me? I can't look at dozens. Jed Rothwell suggested thousands. That's not reasonable.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also being confrontational. It is just all noise. 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying. Perhaps but I never originate messages of that sort. I only respond to comments from others when it is clear that they are not considering the issues I think are important. Almost always, those are also restatements of views. I think everyone does that here in response to others.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I started by the papers from some guys with the surname Chubb. These are theoretical papers, mostly. But it made LENR make a little bit more of sense to me since it makes it the same as hot fusion, but in disguise. That is, LENR is just an electromagnetic pinch, which causes atoms to collide at high energy. Given that there is locally a lot of energy concentrated and the nuclear reaction is much more brief than the pinch, the gamma rays are shielded. 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 14:21 -0800, Mary Yugo wrote: 'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). There are dozens of these. You should look over George Miley's work from 1996. Heat of high order and host metal transmutation. I'd appreciate a link to one or two of the ones you think are the best. If you were asking for papers in one of the fields in which I claim expertise, I'd be happy to refer you to a paper I think sums up the issue most clearly. Can you do the same for me? I can't look at dozens. Jed Rothwell suggested thousands. That's not reasonable.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I started by the papers from some guys with the surname Chubb. These are theoretical papers, mostly. But it made LENR make a little bit more of sense to me since it makes it the same as hot fusion, but in disguise. That is, LENR is just an electromagnetic pinch, which causes atoms to collide at high energy. Given that there is locally a lot of energy concentrated and the nuclear reaction is much more brief than the pinch, the gamma rays are shielded. I'm sorry but if the above information is for me, I don't care about theoretical papers very much. I have no problem with the potential feasibility of comparatively low temperature nuclear reactions. Perhaps that's because I am not a nuclear physicist but either way it's fine. I am not looking for information on why it might happen. I am looking for a killer paper that proves it *did* happen. I keep hearing from Jed Rothwell and others that such papers are around but whenever I look at something about cold fusion it's usually theoretical. If it's a report of an experiment, it's often unclear what they did and why and how. In other cases it's a very brief run and a very small amount of excess energy measured by a not very good calorimetric methods. In other experiments, there is insufficient control (in the scientific sense) and calibration. I have not found anything compelling to prove that cold fusion has been achieved. A single spectacular or at least very clear and convincing NON THEORETICAL experiment report sort of paper that proves it is all I'm asking for.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also being confrontational. It is just all noise. Well, I find repeated assertions that Rossi proved he has tamed cold fusion to be wrong and offensive and confrontational to me. That's why I respond. I supposed it's an endless cycle. I am trying to write less until Rossi does something else or some time passes and he doesn't. Rossi always manages to do or say something interesting and fun fairly often. But it's usually tangential, irrelevant, or unsupported. But nobody is going to make me shut up by being confrontational. They could make me shut up by proving that Rossi has what he says he has. That would work and would please me no end, believe it or not.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). Well, if you're really interested, you could start by reading Storms' excellent primer: http://www.lenr-canr.org/StudentsGuide.htm you will find that excess heat energy has been found in a number of experimental methods with hyperlinks to example papers for each method. For a classic gas loading powder, you can't beat one of Arata's earlier papers http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanewenergya.pdf which showed five orders of magnitude of excess heat over chemical. But, you can't read these on an ethanol stomach and understand them. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I am sorry, there is no such paper. So, like you say in the other, it will be an endless cycle of discussion. Anyway, as I see it, the objection to LENR is of theoretical basis, since it would apparently require that nearly all nuclear physics would have to be abandoned to conform with experiments which always shows small excesses. This is like 3 years ago when the violation of the speed of light was seen with a certainty of 95% at the MINOS experiment. But it wasnt taken seriously because since it was blatant violation of speed of light and something much more crazier than cold fusion. Given that 99.999% of certainty flukes are seen, this was ignored, although measuring speed is something that even with lower certainty is harder to ignore since it is less prone to statistical uncertainty, in most usual experiments. Mind that given that neutrino experiments deal with simpler statistics than in larger experiments, lower confidence levels are usually taken more seriously. Now, that was seen in another experiment, OPERA, at 99.9% (6 sigma or so) of certainty, people start taking it slightly more seriously. Now, with those guys, it seems to me that nuclear physics doesnt need to be falsified, so I am OK with research in LENR. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/19 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I'm sorry but if the above information is for me, I don't care about theoretical papers very much. I have no problem with the potential feasibility of comparatively low temperature nuclear reactions. Perhaps that's because I am not a nuclear physicist but either way it's fine. I am not looking for information on why it might happen. I am looking for a killer paper that proves it *did* happen. I keep hearing from Jed Rothwell and others that such papers are around but whenever I look at something about cold fusion it's usually theoretical.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Given that 99.999% of certainty flukes are seen, - are commonly seen in experiments with complicated statistical analysis, 2011/11/19 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I am sorry, there is no such paper. So, like you say in the other, it will be an endless cycle of discussion. Anyway, as I see it, the objection to LENR is of theoretical basis, since it would apparently require that nearly all nuclear physics would have to be abandoned to conform with experiments which always shows small excesses. This is like 3 years ago when the violation of the speed of light was seen with a certainty of 95% at the MINOS experiment. But it wasnt taken seriously because since it was blatant violation of speed of light and something much more crazier than cold fusion. Given that 99.999% of certainty flukes are seen, this was ignored, although measuring speed is something that even with lower certainty is harder to ignore since it is less prone to statistical uncertainty, in most usual experiments. Mind that given that neutrino experiments deal with simpler statistics than in larger experiments, lower confidence levels are usually taken more seriously. Now, that was seen in another experiment, OPERA, at 99.9% (6 sigma or so) of certainty, people start taking it slightly more seriously. Now, with those guys, it seems to me that nuclear physics doesnt need to be falsified, so I am OK with research in LENR. -- Forwarded message -- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/19 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I'm sorry but if the above information is for me, I don't care about theoretical papers very much. I have no problem with the potential feasibility of comparatively low temperature nuclear reactions. Perhaps that's because I am not a nuclear physicist but either way it's fine. I am not looking for information on why it might happen. I am looking for a killer paper that proves it *did* happen. I keep hearing from Jed Rothwell and others that such papers are around but whenever I look at something about cold fusion it's usually theoretical.
RE: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
From: Mary Yugo I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). Have you seen such a paper for hot fusion? They have run through almost $20 billion by last count, so why no 'killer paper' or even a convincing experiment that points to financial justification? LOL. I have a feeling that nothing less than a mea culpa admission by Randi and Bob Park will do for you, but if you want to educate yourself on the early history of Ni-H, and to read the most likely inspiration for Rossi from the nineties - here is the paper that got many of us interested in the field ... http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf A fair question is why a top notch high tech company (the people who invented the heat pipe) did not follow up on this work, all the way to a commercial product. Some of that history of that can be found in the Vortex archives. Jones BTW their grant to do this work was less than what a typical SUV costs these days. And they were one of the few getting anything at all. You will not see the killer paper for that funding level. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research; You are so unaware of the history of LENR. I'll start with Dr. Mallove's conclusion: What it boils down to is this: By studying the history MIT and cold fusion, one learns that paradigm-paralyzed and unethical scientists have the motive and means to wreck massive damage against an emerging science and technology, especially when an aging and well-financed program is threatened. An MIT President who has access to the highest power levels of the Federal government should not be contributing to the distortion of government spending by feathering MIT’s nest and ignoring facts. MIT alumni/ae, students, staff, and President Charles M. Vest need to consider this—E. Mallove Read the whole report for the scandalous story: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEmitspecial.pdf LENR threatened the millions of dollars that were fed into MIT for hot fusion research. Had MIT committed to faithfully examine the works of Fleischmann and Pons and their own results, the world would be a better one today. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A fair question is why a top notch high tech company (the people who invented the heat pipe) did not follow up on this work, all the way to a commercial product. Jones, Do you think Randell will ever bang his head against the wall over this? g T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Mary Yugo I'm still looking for that one killer paper that shows long sustained, well measured, clearly presented, plots of excess energy vs time that could not possibly have come from some other place -- say by three orders of magnitude or so (nuclear processes could most likely produce even more). Have you seen such a paper for hot fusion? They have run through almost $20 billion by last count, so why no 'killer paper' or even a convincing experiment that points to financial justification? LOL. Let me see if I understand this. If hot fusion doesn't work that means that cold fusion does? How does that happen? Anyway, hot fusion works exactly as predicted for the current stage of research. I don't see the issue. Nobody has worked out how to adequately confine the plasma to get useful output yet and it is extremely expensive but it obviously works. Nobody said it would be quick or cheap. People say that about Rossi not about hot fusion. Cold fusion is supposed to be about table top devices that make large amounts of excess energy far greater than can be accounted for by any other source. That's what I want to see. I will look at the suggested papers but it doesn't sound from the accompanying remarks as if they're killers. That's what the field needs to get respect -- one killer experiment. See, that's the strange thing here. Rossi would be the killer clearly and easily if he could prove he's real. And many enthusiasts here resist every attempt to compel him to do so and instead make lame excuses for why the guy acts like a typical free energy scammer right down to his secret clients, large orders from people who won't be identified, none from people who will, refusal of a reasonable test from a trusted colleague who worked with him before (Celani) and association with promoters of *obvious* scams such as the Schneiders, Sterling Allan and Hank Mills! That's CLASSIC behavior for a scam! If you care to have cold fusion accepted into the main stream and if you believe Rossi is real and right and honest, put pressure on him to prove it. Jed put pressure on Rossi. You should too instead of helping him get a free ride. Don't resist reasonable requests from skeptics! Embrace them!
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A fair question is why a top notch high tech company (the people who invented the heat pipe) did not follow up on this work, all the way to a commercial product. Some of that history of that can be found in the Vortex archives. Want to give me a clue? Thermacore seems like a large company and it's still grinding away at all sorts of things per its web site http://www.thermacore.com/
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: After 1989, PF got tens of millions to fund their research; You are so unaware of the history of LENR. For those who are really interested in the history of LENR, I have posted the April 26th, 1989 Congressional Hearings on Cold Fusion here: http://goo.gl/HzlyP T
RE: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
From: Mary Yugo * Have you seen such a paper for hot fusion? They have run through almost $20 billion by last count, so why no 'killer paper' or even a convincing experiment that points to financial justification? LOL. MY: Let me see if I understand this. If hot fusion doesn't work that means that cold fusion does? How does that happen? Are you always this flippant with your logical deductions - when faced with the inadequacy of the same old lame argument that we have been hearing for weeks? I suppose you realize that fewer and fewer participants here are taking your seriously anymore - so why not play the fool. What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires proper funding levels. Conventional science has not only failed society badly in this regard, many of the recipients of public largess have actively conspired to keep funding away from alternative solutions. We cannot really expect the 'killer paper' from LENR without a fair proportion of that $20 billion. . but we might get lucky and get it anyway, and sooner than anyone thinks. The paper cited in the prior post should have opened up the floodgates of funding - as it is almost there - instead you find the opposite happening: a good research paper leads to a circle the wagons mentality for a few thousand high level physicists, who can see their cushy 6 figure incomes and stress-free jobs going away, not just away - but the funds being transferred to uncredentialed inventors and engineers. It has been almost a class war type of thing since 1989 - with the Ivory Tower, Ivy League set realizing that they are basically unemployable in industry or Public Universities - where performance counts - at anywhere near their current compensation packages - if the alternatives succeed. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Mary Yugo ** ** Are you always this flippant with your logical deductions - when faced with the inadequacy of the same old lame argument that we have been hearing for weeks? I suppose you realize that fewer and fewer participants here are taking your seriously anymore – so why not play the fool. ** ** What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires proper funding levels. ** ** Conventional science has not only failed society badly in this regard, many of the recipients of public largess have actively conspired to keep funding away from alternative solutions. ** ** We cannot really expect the ‘killer paper’ from LENR without a fair proportion of that $20 billion… ** ** … but we might get lucky and get it anyway, and sooner than anyone thinks. ** ** The paper cited in the prior post should have opened up the floodgates of funding – as it is almost there - instead you find the opposite happening: a good research paper leads to a “circle the wagons mentality” for a few thousand high level physicists, who can see their cushy 6 figure incomes and stress-free jobs going away, not just away – but the funds being transferred to “uncredentialed” inventors and engineers. It has been almost a class war type of thing since 1989 - with the Ivory Tower, Ivy League set realizing that they are basically unemployable in industry or Public Universities - where performance counts - at anywhere near their current compensation packages - if the alternatives succeed. Is that because none of them could use any basic skills in a new discipline? Did buggy mechanics all die off when cars came out? Of course not, they switched to working on cars. If cold fusion is ever properly demonstrated, thousands of scientists will want to investigate it just as thousands turned to PF when they made their initial announcement. The problem was that nobody could replicate what they did and, in the end, neither could they.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Daniel I think you have MY pretty well pegged. She is a talker, Rossi is a doer. It is good for the world that we have plenty of Rossi's. -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also being confrontational. It is just all noise. 2011/11/19 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, you are just polite. But you are extremely repetitve. You make request that know will not be fullfilled, at least according to your tastes, you do that all the time. That repetition is annoying. Perhaps but I never originate messages of that sort. I only respond to comments from others when it is clear that they are not considering the issues I think are important. Almost always, those are also restatements of views. I think everyone does that here in response to others.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
It is only a matter of time before you will be proven wrong MY. We will all celebrate on that day. -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: People pay attention to whatever you write because you are confrontational with other people point of view. Thats all. But your arguments are repetitive, but people get the bait, trying to make you shut up by also being confrontational. It is just all noise. Well, I find repeated assertions that Rossi proved he has tamed cold fusion to be wrong and offensive and confrontational to me. That's why I respond. I supposed it's an endless cycle. I am trying to write less until Rossi does something else or some time passes and he doesn't. Rossi always manages to do or say something interesting and fun fairly often. But it's usually tangential, irrelevant, or unsupported. But nobody is going to make me shut up by being confrontational. They could make me shut up by proving that Rossi has what he says he has. That would work and would please me no end, believe it or not.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is only a matter of time before you will be proven wrong MY. We will all celebrate on that day. LOL... me too!! But please don't hold your breath!
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:49 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is only a matter of time before you will be proven wrong MY. We will all celebrate on that day. You should carry a sign. You'd fit right in with the ones carrying signs about The End is Near.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Have you seen such a paper for hot fusion? Why yes. Have a look at http://www.progressive.org/images/pdf/1179.pdf. It's an article from 1979 in The Progressive on the H-Bomb secret. I guess there are many earlier papers, but they're probably classified. They have run through almost $20 billion by last count, so why no 'killer paper' or even a convincing experiment that points to financial justification? LOL. No. But every one of them verifies that fusion works. That's what's missing from cold fusion. If I understood the question, it was not about financial viability, but just a paper that proves unequivocally that cold fusion works. In the opinion of the DOE in 2004, no such paper exists. (Not much has been published since.) Hot fusion clearly works, but producing a controlled reaction is hard. It requires 100M C, and so every iteration is big, expensive, and time-consuming. It may never be viable, but the odds can be expressed without (negative) powers of 10.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I'll start with Dr. Mallove's conclusion: What it boils down to is this: By studying the history MIT and cold fusion, one learns that paradigm-paralyzed and unethical scientists have the motive and means to wreck massive damage against an emerging science and technology, especially when an aging and well-financed program is threatened. An MIT President who has access to the highest power levels of the Federal government should not be contributing to the distortion of government spending by feathering MIT’s nest and ignoring facts. MIT alumni/ae, students, staff, and President Charles M. Vest need to consider this—E. Mallove This would only make sense if the research had been stopped by MIT. But as advocates like to crow, hundreds of scientists continued to work on it, and about 200M has been spent on it. MIT does not have power over other countries, and they're not the only ones who can do research. It's very unlikely that support from MIT would have attracted much more interest in cold fusion. And no one knows if another hundred scientists, or another 100M would have made a difference. After all, if Rossi has found the holy grail, he did it on a tiny budget, and without the MIT minds. LENR threatened the millions of dollars that were fed into MIT for hot fusion research. Sure. So what? The notion that MIT hot fusion people could convince the government to abandon a field with such enormous strategic, economic, and environmental benefits *to itself* is more implausible than cold fusion itself. And it's not just benefit of the field, but strategic risk in ignoring it if other countries develop it. And all for the interest in keeping grants? You're saying that someone supported by the government can use the government's money to talk the government into something against its own interest to preserve the support of themselves? There has been billions spent in fission research too. Since fusion threatens fission, how is it that they didn't shut down the fusion research. Or vice versa. It's crazy. It's all just paranoia and excuses for having so much invested in something that has led nowhere. Funding agencies like the DOE understand conflicts of interest, and avoid them, and their 2 panels of experts have found no merit in the field. Had MIT committed to faithfully examine the works of Fleischmann and Pons and their own results, the world would be a better one today. That's a wild guess. It's possible it could be worse, if it had wasted the time of a scientist who has made life-saving discoveries. As it is, cold fusion wasted the career of Pons, who was a respectable scientist at the time.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: * * What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires proper funding levels. That's obviously true of hot fusion. You can't contain a plasma at 100M C for chicken feed. But the reason cold fusion is so attractive is that it's *not* like hot fusion. As it has been described it's not extremely difficult, and should require a minuscule fraction of the funding to demonstrate proof-of-principle. After all, PF claimed they had demonstrated proof-of-principle in 1989 on their own dime. Now after another 200M for desktop electrolysis experiments, the evidence has not improved at all. ** Conventional science has not only failed society badly in this regard, many of the recipients of public largess have actively conspired to keep funding away from alternative solutions. Well, that's the way the conspiracy theory goes, anyway. ** ** We cannot really expect the ‘killer paper’ from LENR without a fair proportion of that $20 billion… Yes, you can. If it's real. The temperature is 100,000 times lower, so it should be possible with 100,000 time less money, or about 200k. OK, that's a joke, but the scale of the experiment is orders of magnitude smaller. At least 1000 times. And it's gotten more than it's 20 million. The scale of cold fusion is like superconductivity (actually smaller), or graphene, or transistors, or penicillin, or x-rays, or electron diffraction, etc etc. and none of those needed a fair proportion of 20B to arrive at proof-of-principle.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It's very unlikely that support from MIT would have attracted much more interest in cold fusion. As MIT attracted little research in hot fusion. And received little funding. Crude, Cude. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It's very unlikely that support from MIT would have attracted much more interest in cold fusion. As MIT attracted little research in hot fusion. And received little funding. Crude, Cude. Right, because hot fusion is known to work.
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
If cold fusion is ever properly demonstrated, thousands of scientists will want to investigate it just as thousands turned to PF when they made their initial announcement. Excess heat, wet steam, and the other legions of nonsense offered to degrade the term cold fusion are not the issue. At the heart of the matter is transmutation of elements without radioactive decay. This miracle is all important. Such wonderment is impossible within the constraints of our current science. I think that this degradation of the term cold fusion is misdirection, prevarication perpetrated by the enemies of the ascent of man, the perpetuators of human misery, and fools bewitched by the simple and ignorant. What is being explored of late under the term LENR is the craftsmanship of nano-technology and the mysticism of quantum mechanics. It is beyond dispute that recent experiment by Miley, and Arata most prominent among others together with the numerous demos by Rossi offer examples of the transmutation of elements that are inconsistent with any theories propounded by the witch doctors at CERN. Many billions of euros have been dumped into the big science machines in Europe and America to find the Higgs boson keystone that would purport to validate the current thinking in the science of the small. But this make or break concept has not been found as real and will not be found so the scientific work of decades will eventually fall. But science has a chance to open a new door into reality which the power barons which now bestride, smother and strangle science will not allow to be explored. What is your opinion on that? Should human ignorance persist to advance unending funding of dead end science? If you do, you certainly must draw your paycheck from CERN. On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Mary Yugo ** ** Are you always this flippant with your logical deductions - when faced with the inadequacy of the same old lame argument that we have been hearing for weeks? I suppose you realize that fewer and fewer participants here are taking your seriously anymore – so why not play the fool. ** ** What it means, of course, is that getting clean cost effective energy from non-combustion, non fission sources is extremely difficult, and requires proper funding levels. ** ** Conventional science has not only failed society badly in this regard, many of the recipients of public largess have actively conspired to keep funding away from alternative solutions. ** ** We cannot really expect the ‘killer paper’ from LENR without a fair proportion of that $20 billion… ** ** … but we might get lucky and get it anyway, and sooner than anyone thinks. ** ** The paper cited in the prior post should have opened up the floodgates of funding – as it is almost there - instead you find the opposite happening: a good research paper leads to a “circle the wagons mentality” for a few thousand high level physicists, who can see their cushy 6 figure incomes and stress-free jobs going away, not just away – but the funds being transferred to “uncredentialed” inventors and engineers. It has been almost a class war type of thing since 1989 - with the Ivory Tower, Ivy League set realizing that they are basically unemployable in industry or Public Universities - where performance counts - at anywhere near their current compensation packages - if the alternatives succeed. Is that because none of them could use any basic skills in a new discipline? Did buggy mechanics all die off when cars came out? Of course not, they switched to working on cars. If cold fusion is ever properly demonstrated, thousands of scientists will want to investigate it just as thousands turned to PF when they made their initial announcement. The problem was that nobody could replicate what they did and, in the end, neither could they.
[Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Terry, and/or Harry, and/or others who may remember 'compreture' ... Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time. This comes up on Vortex from time to time and it is far from a waste of time. Formerly, Frank Grimer introduced the brilliant concept of 'compreture' - a feature of physical reality in which there is no true basement or ceiling (of the temperature/pressure continuum, when we move to a lower geometry or cross-dimension). To make a long story short, we be on the verge of now finding a more cogent place for Grimer's insight - in Nanomagnetism. Coldness may not be the way to boil water, on its own - but it may be a way to capture Dirac radiation from the negative sea at -6.8 eV ! It does not matter if the sign is negative or positive, so perhaps Steorn will usurp this one, as well :) I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance - that yes, we are all aware that the photon is its own antiparticle. A photon and an anti-photon (or negative photon) - are exactly the same thing. A negative photon from reciprocal space would act just like a regular photon in 3-space. This is how water is boiled with coldness. This information could be more accurately worded, if this were going to become an integral part of Nanomagnetism and will be in the future - but the underlying sentiment is absolutely correct based on Dirac's theory. Specifically, since all heat engines work on the differential between the hot and cold side - with the zero Kelvin set as an (arbitrary) bottom, they are artificially constrained if there is no absolute bottom, at all scales. The bottom of coldness, so to speak, may not be the a real bottom after all, once we reach the nanoscale. Helsinki University of Technology has a specialty Lab investigating the low end - and the coincidental thing is that this does relate to directly to Nanomagnetism - mentioned yesterday. Of course, they are not yet aware of the cross-connection. http://ltl.tkk.fi/triennial/positive.html This Lab may be just scratching the surface of the Dirac sea of Negative energy, and the following quote from them - will be not a limit, but instead the threshold to opening QM door to another dimension (a version of Dirac's reciprocal space). A rather unique property of nuclear magnets is the possibility of producing negative spin temperatures. This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. inaccessibility of the absolute zero, because the negative side of the temperature scale is reached by a rapid magnetic field reversal. During this process the spin temperature is strictly speaking ill defined, but can be thought of evolving via infinity. In a sense, negative absolute temperatures are not colder than zero but actually hotter than infinite temperature! Yes, these guys are hedging a bit at this point, and do not want to sound too radical, given the implications of what should be startling results; but there is much more out there wrt the possibility of achieving gain via coldness, so to speak. UV light from Dirac's negative sea, at -6.8 eV, may not be hotter than infinite temperature but it will easily boil water. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance ... My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics?
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
Yes. The restriction on ad hominems only applies to skeptics. A Rossi-believer can call you ignorant, blind, lacking in a seventh grade education, unable to understand elementary science, pseudo-skeptic, pathological skeptic, an agent of big oil, LENR-denier, even accuse you of intentionally spreading disinformation. If you call them on it, they'll just get more personal. I recall entire threads dedicated to insulting Cude. But, to be fair, the sheer volume of your posts makes you a more likely target. Furthermore, anytime that you compare LENR to unicorn flatulence, no matter the intention, you will draw fire. There are a few skeptics on this list that have provided damning evidence against Rossi's demonstrations, but the tact with which they presented it has kept them relatively unscathed. The trick is knowing when to agree to disagree. Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I put a smiley there to alert people like Mary, who seldom carefully read the posts of others before spouting out a new dose of ignorance ... My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics?
RE: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
From: Mary Yugo * My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics? No - all such attacks are frowned on and precluded, but is my criticism over your habit of posting of dozens of repetitive and shallow messages 'ad hominem' in the first place? Criticism about message content, based on failure to read the preceding message constitutes a correctable kind of ignorance; so this is not a personal attack. All that we (long time subscribers to this list) are asking, is that you provide some level intelligent content - to go along with the acidic level of skepticism. We can see that you are intelligent, but strongly predisposed to not trust Rossi. We do not need to be reminded of your distrust 20 times per day. Intelligent comment usually includes reading and understanding the post to which you responded, and some understanding of the science involved. BTW - I am completely skeptical of Rossi in the sense of his business approach and inherent dishonesty, but absolutely convinced that we are on the cusp of a new energy paradigm - and in fact I resent that Rossi's scam-like business plan may inflict another delay onto what has been 'brewing' since 1989. This list is about a new paradigm - not about an Italian clown of operatic proportions. Plus, as everyone can now see - Rossi's momentum has peaked towards either eventual self-destruction or possibly a grand success that will put Steve Jobs to shame (not likely) - but nothing we can do on this list will change the situation. We do not need to be reminded of Rossi's numerous faults twice per hour now that we are almost a year down the road from when the story broke. As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted - with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff - or especially the hot fusion swindle. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Mary Yugo ** ** **Ø **My understanding was that ad hominems are frowned upon and precluded from this email list. Does that only apply to skeptics? ** ** No – all such attacks are frowned on and precluded, but is my criticism over your habit of posting of dozens of repetitive and shallow messages ‘ad hominem’ in the first place? OK, I'll bite. What is the dose of ignorance I am supposedly spouting exactly?
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have to consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, the wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in this swindle. If there is a future history. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I agree with what you say Terry. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have o consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their ositive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy ociety. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, he wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in his swindle. If there is a future history. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I for one forgive Jones for his slight breech of posting etiquette for briefly expressing the understandable frustrations that will eventually bubble up in the trench warfare that surrounds the Rossi issue. But looking beyond the noise, the scientific implications of LENR discoveries could open a doorway into some seemingly unresolvable questions in cutting edge physics. LENR may provide a doorway of understanding into dark/zero point/vacuum energy, additional dimensions of space time, quantum mechanical entanglement, oscillon vibrations, and many other neat ideas that jones will introduce us to. Jones and his like make this site interesting and I forgive his venial sins of protocol as trivial. The equation in this case is clear. You do not condemn a man when he steps on an ant. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I agree with what you say Terry. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have to consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, the wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in this swindle. If there is a future history. T
Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side
I agree that hot fusion was the biggest boondoggle of the 21st century. Cold fusion is going to make everyone realize how the mainstream scientific community kept us in the dark ages. From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Gain from the cold side On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for the scammed investors: fools and their money will always be parted – with or without our help. Rossi represents chump-change compared to Enron or Madoff – or especially the hot fusion swindle. Hah! If you look at the real cost of the hot fusion swindle you have to consider the consequential costs. Had MIT correctly reported their positive results at the time, we could be will within a LENR energy society. And it's not just the dollars but the cost in human lives, the wars fought over oil, and on and on. Future history will condemn those who perpetrated and participated in this swindle. If there is a future history. T
